The latest farcical piece of
Banana Republic
style security to be imposed at the Tynwald ceremony is a 4 mile radius
aerial exclusion zone. Why? Ostensibly, the reason has been cited as
anti-terrorism
measures, but closer examination of this reason exposes it as ludicrous.

As far as is known, none of those
organisations
classed as "terrorist" are in possession of strike aircraft and, if theywere, a 4 mile exclusion zone
wouldn't
make the slightest difference to them. An aircraft attacking at 350
m.p.h.
would take 41 seconds from entering the exclusion zone to flying over
(and
killing) the assembled dignitaries. More likely, such an aircraft would
launch an air to ground missile strike from outside the exclusion zone,
in which case most of the victims would be dead before they were ever
aware
that they were under threat.

Although not officially classed
as terrorists
in this part of the world, the Americans are more than capable of such
behaviour, and the Isle of Man is responsible for former American Vice
President Quayle. It could be claimed that our forefathers actions in
exporting
Mr. Quayle's great grandfather were "anti-American" and consequently
any
subsequent armed retaliation was purely in "self-defence" Slightly (and
only slightly) more realistic is the prospect of a terrorist or just
some
looney attacking Tynwald in a Piper Cherokee. Just what ordnance could
be effectively delivered in such an attack is open to speculation and
there's
always the Kamikaze approach. The defending forces (?) would have a
whole
one minute and fifty-one seconds to do something - either shoot it down
with something, or evacuate whoever they thought the targets were to
somewhere
else. In reality, such an attacker would almost certainly approach at
low
level and remain undetected until a mere twenty seconds from the
target.
Has Mr. Walker secretly had a Fuhrer-Bunker built under the Hill?

At the end of the day, if someone
wants
to attack Tynwald, they will, and unless the powers that be seriously
do
intend shooting down suspect aircraft, an exclusion zone is completely
meaningless.

None of this would arise, of
course, if
Tynwald was not a potential terrorist target - and why is Tynwald a
potential
terrorist target? Because of the presence of the British military and
visiting
officials. Tynwald Day is the Manx National Day, so why do we have a
foreign,
and on occasions in history, aggressive military presence at the event?

In the eighteenth century,
British pressgangs
were operating illegally in the Island, violently abducting Manx
Nationals
and leaving their families without support. In the last century,
British
troops were stationed around this land with orders to suppress any
resistance.
Resistance against what is unclear. Recently, a Manx Citizen presenting
a Petition of Grievance was ridiculed at our own National ceremony by
the
British military presence.

Their Commanding Officer said and
did nothing.
Similar behaviour anywhere else would have caused a diplomatic uproar.
The British military scrapped the Manx Regiment after World War Two.
This
Island has no legitimate links with the British military. Why do our
leaders
insist upon degrading our own National Sovereignty with an outside
military
presence? Why don't we have a non-military Manx Guard of Honour? They
could
be Police, Scouts, Guides - anything as long as it is Manx.Apart from compounding the security
problem,
the increasing presence of foreign dignitaries at the event also
reveals
the true nature of the modern Tynwald: An act of self-glorification for
our Government, divorced from the original and very real concept of
participation
government. Let us call for future Tynwalds to be a legitimate peaceful
target for the Manx people, not a military target for other peoples'
arguments.

Practical
Support Required for Manx Language Project.

The fortunes of the language
programme
continue to be with public utterances of moral support from some
quarters
of the Rheynn Ynsee (Department of Education) failing to materialise in
practical form. Inspite of the literally overwhelming response, the
project
is still without any positive future.

It was this that led Mec Vannin
to pass
an A.G.M. resolution that called upon Hazel Hannan M.H.K. to openly
declare
her intentions towards the programme. So far, she has not responded.
But
first, let's look at some of the background to the Manx language
project.

The most obvious question is "why
learn
Manx anyway?" Why learn an language? Greek and Latin ceased to be
spoken
centuries ago, yet are still widely studied. Our children are
increasingly
forced to learn French, when it is not even a particularly useful
language
in Europe. Courses are available to our children in several languages
that
many will never use, without question. But what about Manx?

The teaching of Manx in schools
is vital
if we are to keep alive a sense of national identity. We no longer have
common ancestry, history, or culture to hold our nation together. Even
the traditional Manx accent is rarely heard in the streets and villages
of Mann. Without a distinct national identity, we will enter the next
century
as I.O.M. plc, a state of faceless money grabbers and social climbers.
But where will the ordinary person fit into this, with no sense of past
or future?

The fact that Manx classes have
been filled
with people who wished that they had learnt Manx when they were younger
is a testimony to the simple human need far a sense of identity. This
is
born out further by the hard statistics that were gathered in the
Quality
of Life Survey of 1990:

62% of respondents thought that
Manx identity
and culture will decrease in the future. 36% believed that Manx should
be made available as an alternative subject in schools.

On this basis, the project was
set up with
an expectation of being able to cater for all interested children with
two teachers and a co-ordinating officer. Infact, despite Manx Language
Officer Brian Stowell joining in teaching as well, several hundred
children
had to be turned away. Since the course began, fall off has been
minimal,
with the greatest (as might be expected) being in a secondary school
where
the lesson took place in the dinner hour.

There is also definite hostility
to the
programme from some quarters, both within the Rheyn Ynsee and the
teaching
profession. There have been reports of children being offered
additional
music or sports lessons in an attempt to lure them away from the Manx
classes.

Recently, the English Times
Educational
Supplement ran a feature on the Manx Language course. It reported the
mattervery seriously and objectively,
without
any of the hysteria that has issued from certain elements of our own
community.
Interviews with children demonstrated just how strongly the
participants
felt. Yet the project is still insecure. The "Times" article confirms
the
reports of hostility when interviewing Ramsey Grammar's Head, John
Christal;
"There was a lot of enthusiasm initially, but some colleagues are
hostile
to the idea." And the Minister for Education continues to remain vague
about the project's future.

So let us compare the lot of the
Manx Language
course to that of the French.

The French scheme was bought "off
the shelf",
probably at substantial cost. The Manx scheme was devised by Dr.
Stowell
and his two teachers, virtually as they were teaching the language.

The French scheme started with
five peripatetic
teachers, teaching from year 5. This has now expanded to 14, teaching
from
year 3. The Manx scheme started with two teachers, and Dr. Stowell also
teaches in an attempt to satisfy demand.

French students receive two
half-hour lessons
each week. Manx students only get one.

French is compulsory. Manx is a
chosen
subject.

The French teachers are "scale"
posts,
receiving extra remuneration as time goes on. The Manx teachers are on
basic rate.It is even believed that the
teachers'
petrol allowance for the French course is calculated in a way that is
preferential
to that of the Manx teachers.

The Rheyn Ynsee promised to cater
for all
interested children. This, it has not done.

Now ask yourself how often you
have used
French since you left school. Manx can be spoken each and every day in
this island.

It is clear that the scheme was
established
with failure in mind. Don't allow this to be the case. We owe it to our
children and the many thousands of people who have struggled to keep
Manx
alive. It has never been a dead language.Enclosed is a standard letter. Send
a
copy to Bnr. Hazel Hannan M.H.K., and a copy to your M.H.K..These letters do get read, and
notice
is taken. If you wish to write your own letter, that's better still. Do
it today, before you forget, before we lose the Manx course.

Finance
Sector Policy Review Committee to sit soon.

The committee established to
review Mec
Vannin' policy in relation to the finance sector will hold its first
meeting
at the end of August. Members of both Mec Vannin and the general public
are invited to send submissions / observations before the 31st August.

Lost:
One Democratic Left Party.

Earlier this year, a party
calling itself
the Democratic Left was born from the ashes of the Peoples Forum. The
Forum,
claimed the D.L. , had been boycotted by Mec Vannin. That's a little
difficult,
since after its conception at a public meeting last year, we never
heard
of it again. We haven't heard of the D.L. again either. Maybe we're
boycotting
that as well.

Found: One
disgruntled
nationalist in Ramsey.

Rhenwhyllyn
Objections Upheld

Mec Vannin wrote a letter of
objection
to the proposed development by Mr. R.H. Cooil of land near Gansey
Point.
This was to be the site of the new Port St. Mary School. The matter now
goes to review.

One of the objections supported
by the
Planning Committee was that the development in an elevated position
would
be detrimental to the appearance and character of an area of coastal
attraction.
Since this would also apply to a school, it leaves us wondering what
would
have happened if the Department of Education had obtained the land by
compulsory
purchase.

Buy
Manx

It is a sad fact that the only
crops really
worth growing on Manx soil these days are 'legoland' housing estates
and
multi-storey office blocks. True enough, most farmers can scrape a
living
out of Manx agriculture, but if they're to live up to the modern fast
living
life style that we are lead to believe will provide us with eternal
happiness,
selling a couple of fields to a developer beat's the monthly milk
cheque
hands down.

It's not just farming either. How
many
of the small shops that we've grown up with, Manx run and owned, have
been
sold to make way for another prestigious office block or a UK owned and
managed superstore shopping complex.

If all this makes gloomy reading,
remember
- it doesn't have to be this way! Next time you are out shopping, THINK
MANX!

Support Manx producers and
retailers. Embarrass
the big supermarkets into actively promoting Manx produce, instead of
including
it as an after-thought. If you can't find Manx produce in a particular
shop, write to the management and find out why not. Organise boycotts
of
shops which don't promote Manx produce, or better still encourage
others
to shop in stores which do promote Manx goods.

Remember that buying Manx will
encourage
producers and retailers to stay in business rather than sell up to
speculators
and developers.

Philly Beg

* Mr. Richard
Leventhorpe M.H.K.,
in a response to a letter from Mark Kermode concerning Laxey Mills,
claimed
that an increased population would benefit our farmers through
increased
demand for home grown produce. Whilst there may not be anything wrong
with
that reasoning, it is clearly not the case. Farmers are growing to
export
into a market in which they can hardly compete, whilst the population
spends
£millions each year on identical imported food, because the Manx
produce simply does not appear on the shelves. Food for thought?

M.K.

MANNIN
- The land where companies have more rights than people.

The last week of June saw the
House of
Keys unanimously approve legislation to allow intimate body searches in
'the war against drugs'. This means the physical invasion of body
orifices.
Mec Vannin passed a resolution at this ear's A.G.M. calling for the
Keys
to think again over this matter.

Clearly, the Keys has yet again
been blinded
by the emotive issues of the case and adopted the attitude of, "The end
justifies the means." The voices of those who we would have expected to
adopt a liberal attitude were strangely silent. It was claimed that we
were the only jurisdiction left in Europe without these powers. Does
that
mean it's right?

This is a curious contrast to the
attitude
adopted by the Government in relation to the privacy and liberties of
finance
sector companies. Section 32 of the 1991 Companies Act, which allowed
intimate
searches of company records when suspicious activities could be
demonstrated,
was immediately withdrawn when representatives of the F.S. claimed that
it was "Draconian". We are probably one of the few European
jurisdictions
not to have such powers.

Similarly, European legislation
that would
curb debtors and fraudsters using the Island to protect their loot was
also branded Draconian and anti-libertarian, and promptly scrapped.

A U.K. High Court Judge once
said, "Secrecy
is the hallmark of criminality." That our island is a haven for money
laundering,
tax-evasion and fraud is as good as proven. Below is a letter on the
subject.

Dear Sir,

As an island that seems to
pride itself
upon its staunch stance against drugs, we seem to be suffering from a
severe
case of hypocrisy when you consider the volume of cash being laundered
here from drug sales in other parts of the world. The profits from
drugs
sold on the Island, even during T.T. week, pale into insignificance by
comparison. Surely the proceeds of drug sales should be more detectable
than the drugs themselves?

Our own government encourages
the finance
industry to trade here using attractive incentives to use the Island as
a business base. Our government have no way of guaranteeing that money
laundering isn't taking place - how can they given the anonimity and
lack
of policing?

Wouldn't it be better if our
police
force were more concerned over the sources of the money which is
passing
through the finance sector here? It also strikes me that our government
has a strange definition of a prosperous and caring society when so
much
of its revenue is derived from money earned from addiction, starvation,
exploitation and deforestation.(Bolivian farmers are forced to
grow
coca since coffee prices are to low to support them. No assistance is
available
to Bolivian farmers since the government is forced to pay £1,500
per second to international banks. This is also the reason for the
wholesale
deforestation of South America. This story is repeated in Third World
countries
around the Globe.)